ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)
Search
Generic filters
Exact text matches only
Search into
Filter by Categories
Research integrity
Filter by Categories
Human Research Ethics

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesNews

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

COPE Introduces Less Specific Member Rules Along with a New Policy on Expulsions0

Posted by Admin in on December 18, 2017
 

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) was founded in 1997 to provide guidance and education around the growing number of ethics issues facing journals. Last week COPE announced changes to its Code of Conduct as well as a new policy on sanctions against member journal editors and publishers that do not follow their “principles.”

I put “principles” in quotes because COPE seems to be making big changes and the language is important.

Until recently, members of COPE agreed to adhere to their Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (and Publishers). Members are also agreeing to follow the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

COPE Sanctions Policy0

Posted by Admin in on December 18, 2017
 

Background
The COPE Complaints process was established in 2010 [revised in 2014] as a means of providing independent guidance to our member editors and publishers on disputed matters of publication ethics. While the members of the Complaints subcommittee have worked tirelessly to provide advice and to assist in resolving complaints brought to the subcommittee’s attention, often those efforts have been frustrated by a number of issues, one of which is the absence of any defined enforcement mechanism. (See here for more information on the newly constituted Facilitation and Integrity subcommittee). Consequently, the Trustee Board have defined an organizational position and policy concerning sanctions against members who demonstrate major or consistent deviations from the principles of publication ethics agreed to when applying for and receiving COPE membership.

When would COPE instigate possible sanctions?
Sanctions would be instigated when a member’s actions—or non-actions—are found to demonstrate a flagrant or consistent unwillingness to abide by COPE principles. NOTE: part of COPE’s mission is to educate publishers and editors about publication ethics, and hence removal of a member means that COPE no longer has any leverage or impact on that member’s behaviour. Consequently, COPE anticipates that sanctions would be used as a last resort in responding to egregious behaviour by members, and only after failed remediation attempts.

Process leading to possible sanctions.
Identification of the events which might trigger a sanction against a COPE member can come from
different sources, either inside or outside of the COPE membership, and will follow the process…

Read the rest of the COPE Sanctions Policy

Changes to COPE’s disputes process0

Posted by Admin in on December 18, 2017
 

The COPE complaints process was established in 2010 (revised in 2014) as a means of providing independent guidance on disputed matters of publication ethics for our member editors and publishers.

While the members of the Complaints subcommittee have worked tirelessly to provide advice and to assist in resolving complaints brought to the subcommittee’s attention, often those results have been frustrated by issues including:

a) lack of clarity about the scope of the subcommittee’s remit;

Read the rest of this announcement

What changed? Transparency in a table to highlight the value of peer review – Crosstalk (Deborah Sweet | September 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on December 9, 2017
 

At Cell Press, we’re all very committed to the value of peer review and the role it plays in the effective and accurate communication of science.

So we’re always excited when Peer Review Week comes around, as it’s a great opportunity to highlight that value and recognize all the important work that peer reviewers do. This year is no exception, and on top of general recognition, we’ve also been thinking more specifically about this year’s Peer Review Week theme of transparency in peer review.

As reviewers and editors, we have a front row seat for seeing how much papers change and improve as a result of peer review. Some papers, of course, move through from submission to publication with very few changes, but we find that in many (most) cases reviewers and editors make constructive suggestions that help to shore up what’s shown, fill in logical gaps, address inconsistencies, or improve the interest and relevance of the work by enhancing the level of insight.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0